They are also, as a race, MASTERS at double binds (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind)
Thanks for the link. Very useful. What hit me square in the face and made me smile was:
Phrase examples
Mother to son: "Leave your sister alone!", while the son knows his sister will approach and antagonize him to get him into trouble.
The primary injunction is the command, which he will be punished for breaking. The secondary injunction is the knowledge that his sister will get into conflict with him, but his mother will not know the difference and will default to punishing him. He may be under the impression that if he argues with his mother, he may be punished. One possibility for the son to escape this double bind is to realize that his sister only antagonizes him to make him feel anxious (if indeed it is the reason behind his sister's behavior).
If he were not bothered about punishment, his sister might not bother him. He could also leave the situation entirely, avoiding both the mother and the sister. The sister can't claim to be bothered by a non-present brother, and the mother can't punish (nor scapegoat) a non-present son. There are other solutions that are realised through creative application of logic and reasoning.
Emphasis mine.
This ties in nicely with what Flow said:
Hah yes they are so much more skilled in this dept it's a joke.
I would never try to outplay this game but as men we can set and define boundaries which is the difference. As long as you don't concede them or let them be crossed. Ever. There will be many attempts
Basically, I am currently in the process of learning not to do anything I don't want to do. I was always kinda like this in that once I am asked to do anything that compromises my integrity or values, I would politely decline. But in the process of becoming my own best friend, it is slowly becoming natural to refuse to do anything I am even remotely uncomfortable with or not interested in, unless I am offered a good reason for doing so.
Manipulation doesn't just apply to women, it applies to everyone. Employers do it, family does it (sometimes worse than anyone else!), even close friends do it. I have a very close, true, and proven friend who sometimes asks me to do things in ways that I realise are designed to back me into a corner. I don't even think it is consciously done. However, more and more these days, I just listen as the conversation goes on, and at the end when I am asked "are you in?", I simply say no if I don't want to do it. If I am then given a good enough reason for doing it, then that's cool. Otherwise: Don't like it? How the fuck is that my problem? I still have a ways to go to get where I want to be in this regard, but it seems like i'm at least underway.
However, one thing I am a little unclear about: I presume that the "mindset" of my last paragraph above is what was referred to here:
It can be enjoyable, if you go with the flow of the river, rather than trying to paddle against it. Try to paddle against it and the river will wash you away like a twig, go with it and the river loses all its power.
and here
I was talking about the go with the flow part
I don't get Kidd's reference
That's because he brought in a shiticane and you were blinded by it.
If a woman can outhink a man then that motherfucker ain't a man, he's a bitch in men's clothing. People give women way too much credit for having "instinct" and "being able to outgame men", they can't outhink a "MAN", a fuck'n pussy disguised as a man though, sure.
A "man" doesn't play those games in the first place. Many dudes try to play in their arena where they have home field advantage.
....as well as Flow's other quote above.
However, I see what I was saying as more being like a tree with deep roots - continuing the analogy - where the river flows around me and cannot wash me away because of how secure I am in my convictions. So i'm just asking - is there a subtlety in this analogy that i'm missing?